As the war in Ukraine continues to exact a devastating toll, Kyiv has once again demonstrated a commitment to real solutions. In early May, Ukraine proposed a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire starting on May 7 — not as a symbolic gesture, but as a practical step to enable the evacuation of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian aid. This initiative reflects Ukraine’s serious approach to peace and its desire to ease the suffering of millions living under fire.
In contrast, Russia has responded with a markedly different proposal: a brief, three-day truce from May 8 to May 10. The timing is telling. This short pause coincides with Moscow’s Victory Day parade on May 9 — a key element of the Kremlin’s state narrative and a vehicle for military propaganda. Importantly, Russia has offered no clear guarantees for the safety of civilians during this period. It is a pause that seems more tailored to produce a televised display of power than to reduce human suffering.
History reinforces skepticism. In previous years, short-term ceasefires offered by Moscow have consistently been used to regroup and reposition forces, rather than to open genuine humanitarian corridors. Ukraine’s position is clear: real peace cannot be achieved through performative gestures. It requires verifiable and controlled steps, supported by international mechanisms. That is precisely what Kyiv is advocating — and what Russia is avoiding.
Ukraine’s offer has drawn support from international partners. EU diplomats and other Western representatives have backed the idea of a sustained ceasefire as a path toward meaningful negotiations. They recognize the difference between a humanitarian pause and a propaganda-driven delay.
This distinction is vital. For Ukraine, the call for a ceasefire is not a political maneuver. It is a life-saving necessity. President Volodymyr Zelensky has stressed that this is not about optics — it is about creating a genuine humanitarian window. The numbers speak for themselves: over 1.7 million Ukrainian civilians are trapped in active combat zones. A brief, symbolic pause will not change their reality. Past experience has shown that Russia often obstructs humanitarian access even during declared truces. Worse, Moscow’s current proposal lacks any framework for international monitoring or enforcement, rendering it practically meaningless.
Unlike the Kremlin’s stage-managed pause, Ukraine’s initiative has the support of the United Nations, which has called for safe and unimpeded access for humanitarian convoys. This backing underscores the credibility and urgency of Kyiv’s approach.
Meanwhile, Russia is trying to use its traditional May 9 parade to reassert global relevance. But in 2025, this event is no longer an apolitical commemoration — it is a tool of state propaganda. The parade in Moscow is designed to showcase support for Vladimir Putin’s regime and to project an image of strength and normalcy. Yet, most world leaders have declined to attend, recognizing that their presence would lend legitimacy to a regime that continues to violate international law.
Participation in the parade undermines the effect of international sanctions and fractures the unity of Western support for Ukraine. Worse, it sends a demoralizing message to the victim of aggression — that the aggressor still enjoys global recognition. Instead of engaging in empty diplomatic rituals, Ukraine’s allies must stand in solidarity with those under fire, not with those who fire the weapons.
Kyiv’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire is also a direct challenge to Moscow’s ongoing use of symbolic acts as a substitute for genuine diplomacy. By declining to engage in Russia’s “gesture politics,” Ukraine is reinforcing its credibility on the world stage. The Kremlin’s reliance on superficial ceasefires is increasingly seen as a tactic to distract and delay.
Adding to the theatrics, Russia is reportedly hoping for the attendance of Chinese President Xi Jinping at the parade. Although mentioned in passing, this reflects deeper anxieties in Moscow. After a series of Ukrainian drone attacks on the Russian capital, the Kremlin has ramped up electronic warfare defenses, installed checkpoints, and restricted civilian flights. Russian authorities seem to hope that Xi’s presence could act as a diplomatic shield — a human deterrent against potential strikes. This is not a display of confidence, but of fear.
China, for its part, has not committed to any security guarantees. The fact that Moscow is banking on symbolic foreign attendance to prevent attacks illustrates how deeply insecure the regime has become. Even its closest supposed allies appear unwilling to risk association with an increasingly unstable partner.
Russia’s security anxieties have also been projected onto visiting delegations. Ukraine has clearly stated that it cannot guarantee the safety of foreign officials on Russian soil — that responsibility lies with the Kremlin. But Moscow’s heightened domestic security measures and plea for restraint from Kyiv only highlight a deeper truth: Russia itself can no longer guarantee safety within its own borders.
In the end, the illusion of stability that the Kremlin tries to project through parades and PR is easily shattered by the daily reality on the ground. The real risk to international delegations does not come from Ukraine, but from the very regime staging the event.
Ukraine’s position remains firm. It is not interested in participating in Moscow’s symbolic theater. It is focused on saving lives, protecting civilians, and working toward real peace. That means not just calling for ceasefires, but ensuring they are meaningful, monitored, and humanitarian in nature. The world has a choice: to applaud a parade or to support the people who are fighting for survival.
